There is also the other side of these discussions where many things are
assumed to be correct.
So correct that you just have to agree with them. You do agree? Yes, I
knew you did.
We all want Jobs, yes we do.
We all want Growth, yes of course we do.
If it is good for business, then of course it has to be good for everyone
-- it means jobs and growth.
If it hinders business in any way, it is bad. It prevents jobs and growth.
If it can be suggested in any small way that it hinders business, it is
bad. It prevents jobs and growth.
All union activity is bad because it hinders business. It prevents jobs
and growth.
Every big and dodgy project is worthwhile - it means jobs and growth.
Notice how Hinders morphs into Prevents.
Not mentioned is that independent economists reckon that many of these
ideas are rubbish.
What do we want! Jobs and growth!
When do we want them? Now!
I almost started chanting there.
I need a cuppa.
Bob T
On 24 January 2017 at 22:11, Warren Lewington <wjlewington@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Yeah. Please. Got any floss?
*From:* austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:austechwriter-bounce@
freelists.org] *On Behalf Of *Peter Martin
*Sent:* Monday, January 23, 2017 9:56 PM
*To:* austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* atw: Re: SORT OF OFF TOPIC, The manipulation of language for
political gain
Warren:
Care to share room there if I bring my own toothpicks?
-Peter M
Sent from TypeApp <http://www.typeapp.com/r>
On 23 Jan. 2017, at 2:27 pm, Warren Lewington <wjlewington@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
As an academic, watching my tutors and colleagues Christine, everyone is
still scrambling to get enough reliable information to build arguments for
context.
None of my academic tutors and peers have any answers yet. Let alone can
we pinpoint any clear contexts. There are a range of emotions ranging from
panic up to quiet observation. No one is ready to write publicly yet.
I’ve been writing stuff down for months and I am as confused as ever. The
only emotional response I had on post-Election day was being unsurprised at
the result, but a bit shocked at the new reality. The only gratuitous
personal note I can make is that I had picked up on the predictive US
election result polling problems – which, when you considered those polls
against the public support versus the publicity against Trump, and the
virulent nature of his campaign behaviour, dialogue, and divisiveness, the
polls were not showing true. The polls were consistently ALWAYS too close.
For me, this meant one of several possibilities:
1. The pollsters were not accessing the right spread of data. This is true
to a point.
2. The pollsters were being lied to. This is true.
3. The pollsters were ignoring datasets. This is related to 1., and is a
problem of polling in non-compulsory voting states. It is also true.
Trump effectively engaged in a game of psychoanalysis with the population
of Americans who have been disenfranchised from society since the breakdown
of the industrial Mid-west. This is now two and a half generations of
voting Americans, many of whom have never voted. But this time they did,
and the pollsters didn’t poll them. This vote-possible population were so
fed up with the political class they collectively lied to pollsters about
their anger, and their intention to vote for Trump. Many people
deliberately lied to prevent the political class (East coast-based
neo-Liberals and neo-conservatives) from modifying their ideological policy
making, which might mollify some without fixing the disenfranchised
problems, and maintaining the status quo of power relationships.
Trump picked up on how angry are Americans who have not participated in
the electorate since the Reagan era. This lying by the population informs
us about a range of problems summarised here. Firstly, it says the anger is
deep and emotionally charged. Second, it shows the people are angry enough
to take an in-credible and illogical choice. They have simply chosen anyone
who is not part of the current system or political class. Adolf Hitler’s
National Socialism party was a group in this position in Weimar Germany.
Thirdly, Trump may not be the extremist, but he has no real capacity to fix
the problems America faces. He is just as likely to create an even bigger
political vacuum where a real extremist could find a way into the American
Presidency. Then again, he may be the extremist. Either way, if that
scenario plays out, we are all in trouble. Fourthly, if America as part of
this Trump-o-nomics policy mess Trump campaigned on is played out, it will
spend an end to the “American Empire” which employed pop-culture and soft
political power to colonise and expand its markets. Trump believes
internalised, isolationist policies will make America great again. That was
the politically argued belief in Washington played out 140 years ago,
before America annexed the Philippines and took a piece of the empire
action from Europe. If Trump does turn America isolationist, it opens the
way forwards into a real form of post-colonialism, and wrests power away
from neo-states being propped up by American military and economic
interests. There’s a few in the Middle East, and a couple in Asia. This
will be destabilising in many parts of the world.
Untruth, or the ‘post-factual’ (as I call it) period we are in is also a
credibly problematic role player in this milieu. Trump, Brexit, Pen, and
other right-wingers in Europe are sweeping into popularity, primarily
because, like Americans reflecting in America’s golden industrialised
economic boom times, there has become a sense of nostalgia, related to the
belief that times seemed better back then. We have all experienced this.
Unfortunately the sense of nostalgia is not negated by any real argument
that ‘now’ is ‘better’. Fact is, for most average people in western
democracies, things are not better. They are worse than they have ever
been. When eight men control more than half the world’s wealth, and are
clearly politically well-connected directly to the halls of power, then the
world is in a bad way. The search for truth, untruth, or any post-fact that
sounds about right and gratuitously makes you feel better justified at your
sense of disenfranchisement is a powerful and dangerous thing. I strongly
suspect this psychological mindset is part of the problem. It is straight
out of the Marxian and Freudian copy-book for bad things are about to
happen in societies, where the conflict between the haves and have-nots
becomes direct confrontation, and anyone in a minority perceived to be in
the way, or part of the problem, is a target. It ain’t pretty, and all this
is being played out underneath looming environmental catastrophe.
It’s no wonder academics haven’t got any answers yet. There may not be
any...
Warren, digging a bomb shelter in my reinforced concrete floor with a bag
of toothpicks.
*From:* austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:austechwriter-bounce@
freelists.org <austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>] *On Behalf Of *Christine
Kent
*Sent:* Monday, January 23, 2017 1:33 PM
*To:* austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* atw: Re: SORT OF OFF TOPIC, The manipulation of language for
political gain
Ah, found one.
http://theconversation.com/politics-podcast-don-watson-
on-the-rise-of-trump-65401
And A C Grayling has a few on BREXIT.
*From:* austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:austechwriter-bounce@
freelists.org <austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>] *On Behalf Of *Christine
Kent
*Sent:* Monday, 23 January 2017 11:52 AM
*To:* austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* atw: Re: SORT OF OFF TOPIC, The manipulation of language for
political gain
OK, Warren, when even you get my question wrong, I have clearly failed to
communicate it.
*Context*. So let me give some more *context*. *Context*. But please, I
do not intend to discuss the politics. My sole interest is in publications
that are addressing how language is *currently* being used to brainwash
rather than inform – in *2016/17*.
George Orwell was writing in a world where the powers in that world were
overtly experimenting with brainwashing techniques on the population at
large. It was a relatively new science, for which Edward Bernays takes much
credit, even though aspects have been carried out since time immemorial.
There is nothing new about brainwashing, and nothing new about using
language as a tool to achieve that end.
George Orwell is long dead. I did check out to see what Don Watson is now
doing, be he seems to have gone quiet, and his focus was very much the
management world, not so much global politics. He is right. He describes
how language is being abused very well. I did find this from 2010 which is
quite good but not the focus I am looking for.
http://library.fora.tv/2010/02/27/AC_Grayling_Its_All_Gone_To_The_Dogs ;.
Words themselves are important, and what is happening to words is
important, but it is only part of what is going on. It is what we are doing
with this capacity that matters.
Let us use the model that George Orwell was writing from the outside
looking in. He was imagining where we would end up if the trend promoted by
the Bernays school of thought continued. All the behaviours were in
existence back then, but the tipping point into the 1984/Animal Farm
dystopia had not yet been reached. It was just a bad dream.
Now look at 2016. Have we gone past that tipping point? What does it now
look like from the inside looking out? Consider that we may now be embedded
within that dystopia, where we are told that black is white and white is
black, and we believe it in the absence of facts and in the absence of
minds trained in logic. Is it possible that we are living in a world where
the majority are now unable to identify weasel words from truth, where the
majority cannot discriminate between rhetoric and fact – so much so that
they do not know that they are two different things?
We have marches run by women who believe in and promote Sharia law,
designed to protest Trump’s unguarded joke about grabbing pussy. This is
cognitive dissonance.
We are in a world where a million or so women can be encouraged to march
for some amorphous motivation because they lost the election and are (maybe
justifiably) afraid of what Trump might do. But these same women did not
march to end the illegal American invasions and bombings of second and
third world countries, including their women and children, nor are they
marching against enforced medication and many of the other human rights
violations that are happening across the western world today. Why is Trump
talking about grabbing pussy more important that human rights abuses of
women and children world wide? More cognitive dissonance.
We have mob behaviours emerging such as those in Animal Farm but much much
more. Emotional expression has become more extreme, with mild dislikes or
intellectual disagreements elevating into murderous hatred totally out of
proportion to the perceived crime. Brainwashing and social control
techniques are vastly more scientifically advanced than Orwell could ever
have predicted – and the misuse of language is very much part of that
social control.
So my original question, that has been ignored by every reply, is does
anyone know of quality publications that place this into the recent
context? The context of BREXIT, Trump, Wilders, Le Pen, the invasion of the
middle east, the amassing of troops on the Russian border, the sabre
rattling with China, growing religious fundamentalism.
If your answer is “no”, you don’t know of such quality publications,
please just say that, rather than change my question so you can have an
answer.
Christine
*From:* austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:austechwriter-bounce@
freelists.org <austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>] *On Behalf Of *Warren
Lewington
*Sent:* Sunday, 22 January 2017 6:48 PM
*To:* austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* atw: Re: SORT OF OFF TOPIC, The manipulation of language for
political gain
George Orwell: Politics and the English Language.
http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/
It’s an oldie but boy does it still have resonance now...
*From:* austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:austechwriter-bounce@
freelists.org <austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>] *On Behalf Of *Christine
Kent
*Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2017 10:41 AM
*To:* austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* atw: Re: SORT OF OFF TOPIC, The manipulation of language for
political gain
You are certainly on the track, Bob. This article presumes that mainstream
media is telling the truth and alternative media is lying, which is a false
assumption, but the increasing level of fake news, slanted news, biased
news, news that lies by implication, news that lies by quoting out of
context, etc, is certainly part of the problem.
I am looking for educated analysis of this *trend* towards deliberate
untruthfulness, which has been happening for a long time, and its
implications for “*democracy*”.
Is there a trend, how big is it, and how does it impact on an electorate?
Deflecting conversations from the original topic to a spurious and
meaningless topic is one obfuscation technique.
So, back to my original question.
Does anyone know of a *good* and *accessible* discussion on *the misuse
of language* and *how poor language skills are influencing political
outcomes*?
*From:* austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:austechwriter-bounce@
freelists.org <austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>] *On Behalf Of *Bob T
*Sent:* Friday, 20 January 2017 6:49 PM
*To:* austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* atw: Re: SORT OF OFF TOPIC, The manipulation of language for
political gain
Are we in a post truth world? One where faith trumps facts?
https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2016/11/
26/how-fake-news-online-skewed-the-us-election/14800788004023
This artcile seems to be behind a paywall, but can read one article each
day.
Bob T
On 20 January 2017 at 18:15, Bob T <bob.trussler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This article may be interesting >>http://www.economist.com/
news/leaders/21706525-politicians-have-always-lied-
does-it-matter-if-they-leave-truth-behind-entirely-art
